Forum

Welcome to the newly redesigned Science Careers Forum. Please bookmark this site now for future reference. If you've previously posted to the forum, your current username and password will remain the same in the new system. If you've never posted or are new to the forum, you will need to create a new account.

The new forum is designed with some features to improve the user experience. Upgrades include:- easy-to-read, threaded discussions- ability to follow discussions and receive notifications of updates- private messaging to other SC Forum members- fully searchable database of posts- ability to quote in your response- basic HTML formatting available

This is awesome, but sad because a lot of what I hear as "scientific news" turns out to be hype. When you look up the actual paper, most of the time it does't really make the same claims as in the press release. The press release often reads something like "we found X about Y and this is going to help us cure disease Z". But the actual article is more like "people already knew X and all you contributed was X + 0.0001. We still know nothing about Y or how to cure disease Z. And the link between X and Y is also kind of iffy".

In a way, this does have something to do with careers, doesn't it. There's a tendency for "science and technology" to go the route of the press release I saw something recently, on cold fusion, which led me to thinking how terrible it would be if young scientists were taught that this is the way things work, and if hard science and peer reviews were tossed out the window.

Seriously, when you read the actual articles you are usually disappointed in the actual content. This is why nutritionists make a living for a long, long time! Eggs are good, no eggs are bad, but whole wheat bread is good, no it's bad for you because it's full of gluten and carbs, etc.